SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

The three objectives:
</font>

• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">To maintain compatibility with existing AIs </font>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">To improve the balance of the game, and increase the effective number of strategic options. </font>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">To make as small of a change as possible to the stock game. </font>

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

I thought that Fyron was going to do this...but I'm just as glad to see that you are.

A couple of recommendations is that I'd like to have weapons of equal research cost with similiar damage ratios or at least somwhat equal when compared in their expected roles - weapons like torpedoes should be a viable option later in the game. This will help to encourage creativity in PBW games since no one will be at a disadvantage for choosing different weapons than the typical PBW ones.

The second recommendation is that the talisman should be a mount, so while improving accuracy greatly - it won't hit every time.

[ July 22, 2003, 22:32: Message edited by: Captain Kwok ]

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

Well, I'm kicking it off anyways...
I believe this will mostly be discussion on what to change and how.

The actual modding should take no time at all, since one of the main points is to keep the changes to a minimum.

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

Suggested changes from here:

-Split the Incinerator Beam and Ripper Beam into their own families (IIRC this won't affect the AI, since they already have their own weapon families)

-Increase the effectiveness or reduce the cost of the one-resource improvers (i.e. mineral scanners)

-Tone down mounts a little

-Give the bigger ships penalties to defense (like the smaller ones have bonuses to same- its a steady pattern that just..stops)

-Improve the Tractor Beam III

-PPBs should either be weaker, or harder to get.

EDIT: to help the AI compatability, I would suggest no size or tech tree changes.

[ July 22, 2003, 22:41: Message edited by: Phoenix-D ]

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

Fighters need to be more powerful too. Now they are useless in the endgame and it takes to long to build large fighters. But that wouldn't be a problem if they where more powerful

[ July 22, 2003, 22:41: Message edited by: minipol ]

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

That could be fixed by reducing or removing the PDC's bonus to hit. Currently it's at 70%!

Ah, that's another fix. Make a mention -somewhere- of which weapons get to-hit bonuses. In-game, there is no indication.

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

Here's a quick list of some over- and under- powered ship components, and what I'd do to modify them

Overpowered
- Phased Polaron Beam (rof 2 or less damage)
- Warp Point Opener (drastically cut distance)
- Talisman (increase cost by a factor of 10 +, and increase size*)
- PDC (reduce to hit bonus)
- Quantum Reactor (increase cost by a factor of 10 +, and increase size*)

Underpowered
- Missiles (decrease cost)
- Torpedoes (increase "to hit")
- Meson BLasters (increase range to 8)
- High-Energy Discharge Weapons (increase damage)
- Tachyon Projection Cannon (increase range)

* not sure if you want to increase size of components, due to possible effects on ai ship design.

And here's a list for facilities:

Overpowered
- Ship/Training facilities (lower rate of increase to 1%, lower max value to 10%)

Underpowered
- Cargo Facilities (greatly increase cargo value, decrease cost to 2k)
- Climate Control Facilities (increase effect amount, decrease cost to 2k)
- Medical Lab (increase plague prevention to level 5)
- Mineral (etc) Scanners (increase effect by 50%)
Value Improvement Plant (increase effect)

After you get a list of what you want to change, I would gladly mod the data files for you, unless, of course, you want to do it yourself.

[ July 22, 2003, 23:28: Message edited by: spoon ]

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

True, the PDC's big advantage is the autofiring, so reducing the accuracy would be reasonable.

As for the fighters, all the prices could be reduced at once with a mount...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Is that simply for convenience of upgrades, or is there another reason I'm missing?

For the weapons, I favour returning to scaled SE3 values where possible.

[ July 22, 2003, 23:16: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

The Ripper/Incinerator thing it because those weapons are -nothing- like each other, or like the Wave Motion Gun. The Ripper Beam is a short-range high damage beam, the WMG is a long-range low (total) damage beam with good accuracy.

In short, its a pain to design and build Ripper Beam ships when you have Wave Motion guns.

"- High-Energy Discharge Weapons (increase damage)"

Eeep. Ripper Beam: 20 KT/50 damage. This sucker has the highest damage/KT ratio in the game, the only problems being the short range.

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

Training facilites are way too Cheap in terms of research cost. I think the base should be way higher that 5000

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

Quote:

Eeep. Ripper Beam: 20 KT/50 damage. This sucker has the highest damage/KT ratio in the game, the only problems being the short range.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">True, but I've never seen anyone use them... The extra damage it has now isn't worth the loss in versatility. It is basically a niche weapon (warp-point defense), and so it deserves to have some (more) punch.
Incinerator beams are weak, and it would be nice to have the WMG even scarier.

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Cool, that would allow to have effective cheaper fighters in the endgame!

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

"True, but I've never seen anyone use them... The extra damage it has now isn't worth the loss in versatility. It is basically a niche weapon (warp-point defense), and so it deserves to have some (more) punch."

Its a -pain- to use them because of the upgrade issue (having to unselect "show only latest" and scroll..and scroll..). Stick them on a WP or base with an extended-range mount.

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Still leaves them as mainly a defensive weapon, so an increase in damage seems ok to me. Maybe even reduce the range to 2 to compensate for a larger increase in damage...

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

Torpedoes should have a greater range, not an increase to hit modifier.

Regarding niche weapons - I think those are fine. In a real life situtation not all weapons are going to be equally effective in all situations. Some weapons are suited to only one specific task, while others are good for a range of things. Unlike the torpedo etc, most of the niche weapons still have functional uses in the late game phase and can be considered fine.

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think there should be a weapon to counter the max-def/bezerker combo, and torpedoes seemed a good choice. However, having low-tech, long-range weapon might be neat as well. What kind of range were you thinking? Would maybe Meson BLasters be a better choice for this niche?

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

I guess we'd all fix things differnt ways.
I'd increase damage in torpedoes.

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

Beam and bolt weapons are short to mid range since you'd expect them to decrease in energy the further they travelled.

I think a torpedo is like a missile - except that it travels much faster and hence cannot be targeted by point-defense, but lacks the accuracy you'd get with the missile - also why they are listed as direct fire weapons. I'd just like to see their range boosted to a max of about 10. This allows them to be a great secondary weapon although their damage ratio (damage/kT/fire rate)is less than APB etc, their extended range helps to overcome this shortfall.

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I agree completely - I think every weapon should have its role - and that is where the problem comes in for SE4 - too few weapons fill up too many roles. The APB has both great range and a great damage ratio. The PPB both skips shields and has a great damage ratio.

Might be a valid approach for this mod to seperate each weapon into its own niche, and then balance it from that perspective.

Here is a list of some niches, and which weapons might best fit in that niche:
- long range (Meson BLasters)
- close range only, high damage (rippers)
- skips shields (PPB)
- bonus to hit (torps)
- versatile (APB)
- high damage, low reload (WMG)
- cheap (DUC)

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

increase cost of advanced military science to 50000....

increase cost of advanced storage ( trait ) to 1500

Decrease speed of missles to 2 and size by 10kt to 20 kt

APB's have damage decrease by range

Same with PPB's , SD's ( And the engine one )

For fighters increase the storage and launch rate of the launchers http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

Sure, but most of these things go way beyond the simple balance mod proposed in this thread, and could be done in many different ways.

Personally, I like SEIV Meson BLasters at range 6. I guess it'd be ok to extend the tech tree some levels to give range-8 Versions, but you'd need to mod some AI files to get the AI to research them. Again, way beyond the scope of a simple balance mod.

Which isn't to say that more comprehensive balance mods wouldn't be good to have, for their own sake...

PvK

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think they can be attainable by tweaking some combination of the following:
- cost
- range
- damage
- reload
- "to hit" (Weapon Modifier)

I think that will keep the mod within the range of "simple".

The Meson BLaster, for example, has a range (per tech level) of:
3,4,5,5,6,6

Changing that to:
3,4,5,6,7,8
wouldn't be much of a change at all.

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

Another thing would be to decrease the size of weapon platforms. I like to use them to defend my inner systems but you cannot build enough on medium planets IMO. Maybe their size should be decreased to allow more to e constructed on a planet.

Intel is way to unbalanced. If you build up your intel you can steal a few planets every turn. Not very realistic and quite unbalanced.

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

Nah, Meson bLasters are a bolt weapon. The best option for these guys is to slightly increase their damage while giving them a to hit penalty. Torpedoes should be the long range weapon instead, with no to hit bonus, just the range and maybe a tad more strength - that's it.

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think both of these are bad ideas. Either one would be fine for humans, but the AI isn't smart enough to use the Talisman more judiciously once it's more expensive. The result would be bankrupcy and military irrelevance for any AI programed to use it.

Mounts are interesting, but I think it would be a little bit too complicated of a change IMHO.

A better solution would be to soften the effectivness of the component. Someone suggested taking out the "always hits" ability and give it a 100% bonus to hit instead. This way it's still a powerful component reflecting it's cost and research, but it doesn't guarantee hits from ridiculously long range and can be countered with a lot of defensive bonuses by the opponent.

Just a suggestion anyway.

Regarding niche weapons. I agree that niche weapons are nice for flavor and what not. On the other hand I have always felt the torpedos deserved to be more then a niche weapon. I think changes made to bring them up to a viable front line weapon would be a good thing.

Regarding PPB. I think changing the ROF is a bad idea. I would support slightly weakening them, or making them more expensive, or possibly even a little of both. But changing the ROF would make tehm that much more of an inferior late game choice to the APB. The PPB is only "unbalenced" for a limited time in the mid game. It just so happens that time is when most games end so people get the impression it is an uber weapon. We need changes to make it less dominating in the mid game without making it irrelevant at the end.

Geoschmo

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">True, but that may be out of the scope of what we are trying to accomplish here. Intel will be difficult if not imposible to fix without fundamental hard code changes.

Geoschmo

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

Remember the Point of this:
1) Do not affect AIs with your changes... Requiring re-written AIs means this won't become stock rules.

3) Least changes possible. Meson bLasters don't need to be changed from a moderately powered medium-range gun to a sniper rifle, for example.

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Of course this is all conjecture anyway, but we might be able to get away with minor AI affecting changes. Like if someone wants to tweak the characteristic and racial trait costs a little bit. Because we can also modify the AI_general files to accomodate the changes and include those with the mod. But anything that is going to require serious rework of research and design files is gonna be a problem. And major changes to the characteristic and racial traits that would totally break everybodies favorite custom AI should probably be avoided as well.

Just my opinion of course.

Geoschmo

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What would that do? The AIs will still use it on all ships, and players will still use it, albeit with less frequency.

IMHO the right way to balance Quantum reactors is to get rid of the infinite supplies ability and make it generate a specific amount of supplies, like in the P&N Mod.

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

I would like to see all of the damage types used. I don't think Skips All Shields is used; the Double/Half/Quarter Damage to Shields aren't either. Maybe there are more that I don't remember off hand. Anyway, it's a shame to see them unused in the stock game.

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

My thoughts:

The Talisman
Making this a mount would be the best fix, however I doubt it could be done w/o screwing existing AIs. So, how about this: instead of "always hits", why not let it give a +100-ish to hit? That's still VERY significant, without being brokenly powerful IMO.

Torpedoes
These are silly, ludicrous wastes of time at present. They might bebetter, if their "oomf" were upped. IOW, consider a bonus to hit and increased damage (they shoudl do about as much damage per kT as a comparable-tech/cost Beam weapon (or maybe a bit less), be slightly more accurate, and retain a 1/2 to 1/3 fire rate).

Meson BLaster
There's little reason to use these, compared to APBs. Give them a range advantage (say, 50% more range than comparable-level APBs) while decreasing their damage slightly (say, 80% as much as an APB's max-range hit) and that may change; the choice owudl be close-range high-damage, or, long-range low(ish)-damage.

Ship and Fleet Training Facilities
Make these one-per-system, please. Then 1%/turn, to a maximum of 5% times the level of the facility (iow, 5%/10%/15%).

Cargo Facilities
These need to be greatly improved. I suggest increasing storage capacity by an order of magnitude.

Single-resource Production-Boost facilities
Compared to the all-resource facilities, these are a waste of space. Consider adding +5% to their effects at all levels, and lowering their costs somewhat. Or keep the costs the same, and outright DOUBLE their benefits.

Tractor beams
The higher-tech Tractor Beams should be able to reach out and grab someone further and further away. I suggest a maximum range of damage squared (so a Tractor Beam with 4 damage has an absolute range of 16).

Repulsor Beams
As the base damage of the Repulsor gets higher, it's range should extend; however, as the target starts further and further away, the "damage" should drop off.

PDC
Simply too damned effective. Halve the cost/size, but halve or quarter the damage and remove some or all of the bonus to hit. Only "nerfing" the things will mean people won't use them much; making the cost and size attractive for every ship to sport a couple PDC tucked away here and there, despite the reduced efficacy, would probably work best, IMO.

Storage Components
Should count as cargo space. Even adding a single 1kT of cargo to each would work wonders.

Quantum Reactor
Should be VASTLY more expensive for it's size. Should, by rights, mass 1,000kT (thus fitting only in baseships), but either of those would throw off the AI.
NFC how to fix it without screwing the AI over, but it definitely NEEDS to be changed. At the LEAST, double it's price!

Fighters
While not a balance issue, per se, it'd be a nice change if the Small Rocket Pods were actually a fighter-launched Seeker-type weapon.
For further improvement to survivability, you can simply increase the benefits of Fighter-scale armor; if one slab of Fighter Armor III (or whatever) weighed 1kT but absorbed 50hp of damage, that'd help immensely.
Another not-really-a-balance-issue-but-it'd-be-nice-anyway idea, would be a Master Computer style control component for fighters; 1kT with a +1 bonus movement in combat (higher G-tolerances?). Frankly, those'd make more sense than the full-capital-ship-scale MCs, anyway.

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not really. There is no alternative to PDC besides taking the hit and dying.
Reducing the accuracy could improve the statistics for missiles.

In addition, if we went back to the unlimited range missiles from SE3, it could help too... no more missile dancing. With mounts we can keep the launch ranges the same as unmodded, so there won't be any difference for the AIs.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What about leaving the same range as APB, but with APB decreasing over distance, and MB doing the same damage everywhere as the APB does at its mid-point?

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Makes sense. After all, in space, once you apply intertia to an object, barring other applications of inertia it stays in motion. A missile in space, once launched, only needs maneuvering and homing sensors, and those shouldn't decay with distance enough to matter in game terms.

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">While I like this idea on a personal level, I think it is a risky change to try and get implemented into the stock game. That change alone would tremendously increase the power of the CSM in the early game. So much so that it may become the ONLY viable weapon choice for as long as it takes the players to develop PDC. In combination with some of the suggested weakening of the PDC, we run the risk of turning SE4 into an all missle game from start to finish.

I think this bears some discussion, but we need to be careful with this one.

Geoschmo

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Makes sense. After all, in space, once you apply intertia to an object, barring other applications of inertia it stays in motion. A missile in space, once launched, only needs maneuvering and homing sensors, and those shouldn't decay with distance enough to matter in game terms.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Fuel consumption for maneuvering is exactly the limit factor in ship - to - ship combat. What good is your inertia if target change course by 90 degree ?

Space combat in H.H. books by D.Weber is a good example.

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

As to limitless SEIV missiles - there is no way to make them do damage beyond 20. You may increase the targeting range above that (actually I'm not sure) with mounts, but actual damage could be done only inside 20.
There still be missile dance, but at longer range.

What I would like is to increase missile speed and decrease PDC accuracy a bit.

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This is incorrect. What SJ is talking about is taking advantage of a little bug in the SE4 code. Normally you can't give a weapon damage beyond 20. But if you give a seeker a damage for range 21, the seeker never expires. It continues to seek after it's target until it catches it, is destroyed, it's target is destroyed, or the combat round ends.

Geoschmo

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually, I do believe that if you add a 21st damage area into the missle file that it will have unlimited range and it will damage beyond that. I'm just going off memory here so if someone could correct me I'd be thankful. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Edit: Geo beat me to it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ July 23, 2003, 15:48: Message edited by: Ragnarok ]

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

Uhhhh. That is evil ! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

This would require hard-code changes, but it would be nice if missiles would start moving when they are launched. If the target is within movement range, and there's no PDC involved, there would be no different between a seeker and a direct-fire weapon.
But going back to what is possible, I agree with Oleg, increased seeker speed would be nice.

Increase renge of WMG like in SE3.
And this would screw AI, but it would be nice if different high-energy weapons would not only have different comp families, but also differnt weapon families allowing AI modders to decide which of them they want their designs to use.

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think both of these are bad ideas. Either one would be fine for humans, but the AI isn't smart enough to use the Talisman more judiciously once it's more expensive. The result would be bankrupcy and military irrelevance for any AI programed to use it. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Great point. Forgot that the ai can't handle significant increases in cost.

The +100% to hit that you and others have suggested does seem a better approach.

Ditto for the Quantum Reactor. If you can't balance it by price or size, then changing its effect is next best...

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">While I like this idea on a personal level, I think it is a risky change to try and get implemented into the stock game. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I agree with Geo (ack, twice in one day). Weakening PDC will go a long way to making missiles more effective. Don't want to overdo it, though it is something to keep our eyes on for future iterations.

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

On meson bLasters

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I agree with raising range to 8, but given that it costs much less to research, I think the current damage of 35 is good. (37 would be equal to APB midpoint, so I guess it's moot to argue about...heh)

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think that "reality" shouldn't be the dominant force behind what tweaks are made. That would be a Sim Mod, rather than a Balance Mod. Double true because, really, this is sci-fi, so how can we really say what the characteristics of a "bolt" weapon are?

To that end, I really think some fairly cheap-to-research weapon should have a significant bonus to hit, because it will offer a counter to one of the most common ploys (currently only Kamikaze addresses this, and not very well). Whether or not it is torpedoes doesn't matter to me, but I can't think of a better weapon to fill the slot.

Adding a to hit bonus to torps would then accomplish two things: It would balance the weapon against other weapons (priority one) and it go some way towards making the game more balanced (priority two). Or maybe those priorities are backwards. I dunno!

edit: rephrased the phrase that was poorly phrased.

[ July 23, 2003, 18:18: Message edited by: spoon ]

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

(Tried to post this before, but Win2K networking crashed and ate my post http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif )

My opinion and spreadsheet analysis and experience are that Meson BLasters are one of the better weapons in the game. One of their advantages compared to APB is low research cost, so the fact that they are inferior to APB in some ways is actually good for balance.

I wouldn't mind if there were a similar but different balanced range 8 weapon, or if they could be researched another 2-4 levels to get range 8, but I wouldn't mess with the existing weapon, as it is a good one as is.

Why talk about Meson BLasters and not mention Graviton Hellbore??? (suckiest weapon of the unmodded game, IMO - should be a shield or an armor skipper, IMO)

I also agree that it'd be good to have a lower-tech weapon with a to-hit bonus (to balance people with too much defense bonus, and make offense minus not unsurvivable).

Torpedoes are too weak, but there are three or more good ways to adjust that. Making them the low-tech-bonus-to-hit weapon is probably a good idea.

PvK

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hey now, this might be a very good idea. I agree that Meson BLasters are very good early mid game weapon because of their low research and build cost. But I believe they have fallen out of favor because they are jsut too weak in the mid-late game. Giving them a couple more levels is an elegantly simple solution that had not occured to me at all. I like it.

Geoschmo

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually, making it the lowest mount (at least for ships) would work more seamlessly with existing AI. If you change the existing ability to Combat Offense To Hit Plus, the AIs will exclusively use that instead of Combat Sensors. If it were a mount, they would always use it for DF weapons. Either way, ship designs will be built nearly the same (maybe a few extra armor) if no component with that ability exists (unless it is listed as a required ability).

[edit] Adding levels works fine for humans, but the AI won't research them until after finishing their entire research.txt. Someone further back suggested making the range go 3,4,5,6,7,8 instead of 3,4,5,5,6,6; then it has the same number of tech levels.

[ July 23, 2003, 21:24: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wouldn't that make them ai unfriendly, since all ai will stop researching at level 6? Getting them to range 8 with their existing six tech levels is very doable. If you're concerned about the research cheapness, maybe just up Level 1 research cost to 10k or 15k.

Keeping them valid in the late-game seems important, but if the PPB isn't nerfed more than a little, they Meson BLasters remain not-so-good for the mid game, either.

Range 8 Meson BLasters would be the alternative to the late game APB (for those using Max Range), which is also a good thing.

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

Yeah, I forgot the AI research files have levels in there. Good point.

Re: SE4 Stock Balance Mod
 

just want to point out that any changes to the Talisman is likely to screw up religious AI.

I assume a lot of designs use the 'always hit' ability (I know the UF does). If such a component is not available it will cripple the AI.

For the PPB discussion: I still believe that PPB V is a well balanced weapon. The lower levels (esp. PPB II) could need some toning down though.

Rollo